AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 vs NVIDIA B200 SXM6 Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the release dates for the AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 and the NVIDIA B200 SXM6?

A: The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 was released on January 3, 2023, while the NVIDIA B200 SXM6 was released on October 31, 2024.

Q: What are the memory configurations and bandwidths of these two accelerators?

A: The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 has 128 GB of HBM3 memory with a bandwidth of 6.55 TB/s. The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 has 180 GB of HBM3e memory with a bandwidth of 8.19 TB/s.

Q: How do the FP32 and FP16 compute capabilities compare?

A: The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 delivers 47.87 TFLOPS of FP32 and 383.0 TFLOPS of FP16 (8:1 ratio). The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 delivers 69.34 TFLOPS of FP32 and 69.34 TFLOPS of FP16 (1:1 ratio).

Q: What are the power specifications for each card?

A: The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 has a TDP of 600 W with a suggested PSU of 1000 W and uses 2x 8-pin power connectors. The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 has a TDP of 1000 W with a suggested PSU of 1400 W and is an SXM module.

Q: What process nodes and die sizes do the two accelerators use?

A: Both are manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The AMD chip has a die size of 1017 mm² with 153,000 million transistors, while the NVIDIA chip has a die size of 1628 mm² with 208,000 million transistors.

Q: What are the transistor densities of the two chips?

A: The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 has a transistor density of 150.4M per mm², while the NVIDIA B200 SXM6 has a transistor density of 127.8M per mm².

The Verdict

The recorded data shows two distinct design philosophies for data center compute. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 targets workloads where raw FP16 throughput is the primary metric, offering 383.0 TFLOPS, which is substantially higher than the NVIDIA B200 SXM6's 69.34 TFLOPS FP16 figure. The MI300 also has a lower TDP of 600 W compared to the B200 SXM6's 1000 W, and uses a conventional 2x 8-pin power connector setup with a 1000 W suggested PSU. For deployments constrained by power delivery or cooling infrastructure, the MI300 presents a more manageable integration profile.

The NVIDIA B200 SXM6, by contrast, leads in FP32 compute with 69.34 TFLOPS versus 47.87 TFLOPS, holds a memory capacity advantage at 180 GB over 128 GB, and delivers higher memory bandwidth at 8.19 TB/s versus 6.55 TB/s. It also uses HBM3e memory, a newer memory type than the MI300's HBM3. The B200 SXM6 is a production-active component with a launch MSRP of 34,999 USD, and it connects via PCIe 6.0 x16, a newer bus interface than the MI300's PCIe 5.0 x16.

The data indicates that the MI300 wins on FP16 density and power efficiency on a per-watt basis, while the B200 SXM6 wins on FP32, memory capacity, bandwidth, and interface generation. Both cards have identical percentileVsAllGpus values of 50, and neither has a recorded benchmark score in the database. The choice between them depends entirely on whether the workload favors the MI300's FP16 advantage or the B200 SXM6's memory and FP32 advantages.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results for these two accelerators. Instead, the comparison must rely on the specification-derived performance metrics recorded in the database.

The largest single-specification win for the AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 is in FP16 compute. The MI300 delivers 383.0 TFLOPS, which is 313.66 TFLOPS higher than the B200 SXM6's 69.34 TFLOPS. This represents a 5.52x advantage in FP16 throughput. The MI300 also has a higher texture fill rate at 1,496.0 GTexel/s compared to 1,083.4 GTexel/s, a 412.6 GTexel/s difference. The MI300's transistor density is also higher at 150.4M per mm² versus 127.8M per mm².

The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 holds the advantage in FP32 compute, delivering 69.34 TFLOPS versus 47.87 TFLOPS, a difference of 21.47 TFLOPS. The B200 SXM6 also leads in memory bandwidth with 8.19 TB/s versus 6.55 TB/s, a 1.64 TB/s advantage. Memory capacity favors the B200 SXM6 at 180 GB versus 128 GB, a 52 GB difference. The B200 SXM6 also has more shading units at 18,944 versus 14,080, and more tensor cores with 592 compared to the MI300's null tensor core count. The B200 SXM6 has a boost clock of 1830 MHz versus 1700 MHz for the MI300. The pixel rate also differs: the B200 SXM6 has a pixel rate of 43.92 GPixel/s while the MI300 has 0 MPixel/s.

Specification Differences

The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on the Aqua Vanjaram chip. The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 uses the Blackwell architecture on the GB100 chip. The MI300 has 14,080 shading units, 880 texture mapping units, and 0 ROPs. The B200 SXM6 has 18,944 shading units, 592 texture mapping units, and 24 ROPs. The MI300 has no recorded tensor core count, while the B200 SXM6 has 592 tensor cores.

Memory configurations differ significantly. The MI300 uses 128 GB of HBM3 with a 8192-bit bus and 6.55 TB/s bandwidth. The B200 SXM6 uses 180 GB of HBM3e with an 8192-bit bus and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The memory clock differs as well: the MI300 runs at 1600 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective, while the B200 SXM6 runs at 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective. The MI300 has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1700 MHz, while the B200 SXM6 has a base clock of 120 MHz and a boost clock of 1830 MHz.

Power specifications are another major differentiator. The MI300 has a TDP of 600 W, uses 2x 8-pin power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of 1000 W. The B200 SXM6 has a TDP of 1000 W, uses no discrete power connectors as an SXM module, and has a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The bus interfaces also differ: the MI300 uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the B200 SXM6 uses PCIe 6.0 x16. The MI300 has physical dimensions of 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the B200 SXM6 has no recorded dimensions. Neither card has display outputs, and the B200 SXM6 has no available APIs (DirectX, OpenGL, Vulkan all N/A), while the MI300 has null API entries.

Architecture Differences

The process node is identical at 5 nm from TSMC, but the implementation differs. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 packs 153,000 million transistors into a 1017 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 packs 208,000 million transistors into a 1628 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 127.8M per mm². The MI300 therefore has a higher transistor density, while the B200 SXM6 has a substantially larger absolute transistor count and die area.

The architecture generations are distinct. The MI300 uses CDNA 3.0, AMD's data center compute architecture, and belongs to the Radeon Instinct (MIx) generation. The B200 SXM6 uses Blackwell, NVIDIA's server architecture, and belongs to the Server Blackwell (Bxx) generation. The MI300's predecessor is listed as FirePro Data Center, while the B200 SXM6's predecessor is Server Hopper. The B200 SXM6 has a listed successor, Server Rubin, while the MI300 has no recorded successor.

The FP16 implementation differs fundamentally. The MI300 achieves 383.0 TFLOPS FP16 with an 8:1 ratio, indicating the use of specialized FP16 hardware acceleration relative to FP32. The B200 SXM6 achieves 69.34 TFLOPS FP16 with a 1:1 ratio, meaning its FP16 throughput matches its FP32 throughput. The B200 SXM6 includes 592 tensor cores, while the MI300 has no recorded tensor core count. The B200 SXM6 also has 24 ROPs and a pixel rate of 43.92 GPixel/s, while the MI300 has 0 ROPs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, confirming a pure compute orientation for the MI300.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 wins in FP16 compute workloads. The data shows 383.0 TFLOPS FP16 throughput, which is the dominant specification in this comparison. Workloads that rely heavily on FP16 operations, such as certain AI training and inference pipelines, would benefit from this 5.52x advantage over the B200 SXM6's 69.34 TFLOPS. The MI300 also wins on texture rate at 1,496.0 GTexel/s versus 1,083.4 GTexel/s, and it has a lower TDP of 600 W versus 1000 W, making it the more power-efficient option in the database. Its power connector requirement of 2x 8-pin is a standard configuration, and its 1000 W suggested PSU is lower than the B200 SXM6's 1400 W.

The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 wins in FP32 compute with 69.34 TFLOPS versus 47.87 TFLOPS. This advantage matters for general-purpose data center workloads that operate in FP32 precision. The B200 SXM6 also wins decisively on memory: 180 GB versus 128 GB capacity, and 8.19 TB/s versus 6.55 TB/s bandwidth. The HBM3e memory type is newer than the MI300's HBM3, and the 8 Gbps effective memory speed exceeds the MI300's 6.4 Gbps. The B200 SXM6 has more shading units at 18,944 versus 14,080, and its 592 tensor cores provide dedicated tensor processing hardware that the MI300 lacks in the recorded data. The B200 SXM6 also has the newer PCIe 6.0 x16 interface, while the MI300 uses PCIe 5.0 x16. The B200 SXM6 is a production-active part with a listed successor, indicating an active product lifecycle, and it has a launch MSRP of 34,999 USD.

The recorded data shows no benchmark scores for either card, and both share an identical percentileVsAllGpus value of 50. The wins are therefore based entirely on architecture and specification differences. The MI300 is the choice for FP16-heavy workloads and lower power envelopes, while the B200 SXM6 is the choice for FP32, memory capacity, and bandwidth-intensive workloads.